Possible flaw in Intelligent Design?

[ProgressiveFool]

Bit of a philosophy thread, I suppose, but...

Say we accept Intelligent Design... The Intelligent Designer is a being of Morals, and expects the same of us.

But we are designed to Lust. The simple mechanism is that it causes the race, the species to go on. More complicated is that it's the spice of life.

So how do they answer it, the ID people? Is it just another sin to be tossed on the bonfire, to be cleared away once they accept the IDer? But it's part of the design!

Should they not revel in it?

When they go into abstractions such as ID, they are vulnerable to the abstract morality, and let go the absolute purity/certainty/"morality" of the Judeo-Christian beliefs. If they want to come up with a more "academically pleasing" nomenclature, make sure they get all that comes along with it.

[autorank]

1. Welcome to DU!!!

Interesting point, "they are vulnerable to the abstract morality..." Intelligent design sounds like a fatalistic system. If it's intelligent, then there is some system that drives it, pre programmed. Where is the choice? and with out that Where is the sin? Bad for religion, don't you think.

[ProgressiveFool]

9. The weird thing, for me...

Is that I like the idea of "Intelligent Design". It fits a certain yearning for a "Higher Power" that I feel, that most people I meet feel.

DNA... it's so... perfect. Could that evolve? I almost think it must have been that way from the start, designed that way. Pondering DNA is like listening to Mozart - it's just a little past comprehension.

But saying the Earth's 6k years old in the face of all evidence is a bit much. I say we should take over the "ID" idea for a real pan-religious "anything could have happened" idea. It does not point out specifics of the Creator, just that such a Creator most likely exists - and absence of such would only promote chaos. The one common ground of all civilizations of humankind is that there MUST be a pantheon, a religion, and from that a way of life.

I mean in spirituality, what does it matter the A to B? Only thing that matters is the D, where you're at, hopefully off the path and nicely comfortably contemplating why so many around you are rushing around between A and B. Yep, I subscribe to the Douglass Adams theory of the relative importance of absolute points.

I've spent a lot of time pondering the heavens, and I've no real answers for it. I'm a little suspicious of those who take one look and know it all.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

26. Correction

DNA is far from perfect, and if some "Higher Power" created it, he/she is surely in incompetent asshole, considering the number of errors that occur.

Try this link (a bit heavy):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

[enid602]

41. creationists

The creationists and fundies have to believe that the world is only 5000 years old, because the number of generations described in the Bible dictates that the world's age is about that number. To admit that the Earth is billions of years old would mean that the Bible cannot always be taken word for word. They have to believe in a very strict translation of the Bible, so that the Bible's hard-to-translate predictions in Revelations can be taken as God's word. It's the basis for their 'end times' scenario.

[hector459]

58. Anybody here ever read "The Twelfth Planet?" (now out of print)

It got so close to a reasonable theory about our origin that I am sure the it was banned and quietly censored. Some time ago I heard the author discussing this book on some radio show and it intrigued me so I picked up a copp (paperback). This had to be during the late 70's or 80' I can't remember now. Anyway, when I moved I paced the book up and have not been able to find it so I went to all the major book stores and Libraries to try to find it. Not a trace. Anyway, if you can get your hands on a copy you should read it. It combines "intelligent design" and creation and evolution in a way that discounts neither but makes the ultimate sense. It uses scripture and science to demonstrate a theory that is unmatched in its appeal to both faith and science.

But since the Christian zealots in this nation cannot fathom anything that does not stick strictly to their notions of God and creation, I believe the book has been blocked from further publication.

[lonelysoul2020]

2. I believe

They'd say that "god" gave them free will to do as they want. Be it the sin of lust or the moral aspect of Chastity.

on another note I have one question about evolution. How the hell did the Platypus evolve?

[ashmanonar]

27. platypus has been tentatively connected to marsupials.

although they're still not certain. i'd sya that's the best proof of a god there ever could be: and proof that that god has a sense of HUMOR. :D

[Lone Pawn]

33. A link between reptiles and mammals.

It is an exceedingly early mammal. It lacks nipples and live birth, but does produce milk. It's one step before marsupial.

[Pepperbelly]

36. Intelligent designer with a sense of humor? nt

[Anarcho-Socialist]

63. The platypus was a species left over from the evolutionary

stage between birds/reptiles and mammals. So that it is warm-blooded like mammals but lays eggs like birds and reptiles.

There were other species that were warm-blooded and lay eggs, but they died out a long time ago as they were replaced by typical mammals.

[queeg]

3. Can't be intelligent design

If there were, then my human hand would be formed with a coozie connected---or perhaps my left nut would be able to accept a 16oz beer can and keep it cold if I set it in my lap.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

4. You have a good point, but it's all moot

The goal is not to promote a scientific theory that is studied, analyzed, and critiqued using the scientific method. The goal is to create a christian theocracy and force a certain brand of fundamentalist christianity onto us "heathens." Intelligent Design is simply the proverbial lipstick on the creationism pig.

Pointing out the absurd absurdities in an absurd concept doesn't work with someone who puts their hands on ears and yells "nah nah nah nah nah nah..."

[TWiley]

11. Also,

they are brainwashed to "accept things by faith alone" which actually means "we have no proof, but you must believe anyway".

Of course, to hang on to the lie in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary earns the deceived special cookies in heaven.

They cannot be reasoned with.

[JDPriestly]

5. Is lust integral to intelligent design

assuming such a thing exists? Is death -- and the killing of living beings, animals and/or plants -- also a part of intelligent design? Yes and yes, assuming intelligent design. Therefore, under the theory of intelligent design the intelligent creator created lust and cruelty -- as well as kindness. So what's so intelligent about the design of this world?

[BadMonkey]

18. Death is Life!

Is death -- and the killing of living beings, animals and/or plants -- also a part of intelligent design? Yes and yes, assuming intelligent design. """


Death is the second most important element of evolution, the first is Reproduction... Yehaw!

=)

[Freedom_from_Chains]

6. I think Intelligent Design is a valid question

And one of these days, if we don't extinguish ourselves first, we might just develop to the point where we will know how to ask it.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. There are no invalid questions.

However, for something to be TAUGHT, particularly in science class, it has to have evidence to back it up. The "Intelligent" design crowd is starting from a premise based upon religious belief, and fishing around (ineffectually, I might add) for ways to justify it.

[sandnsea]

7. They do

They channel it into marriage and families. We are designed with alot of things, it's our responsibility to channel it for good.

If you believe in that sort of thing.

[eridani]

8. Not Intelligent Design--Stupid Design

Because it's based on the assumption that God is just too damned stupid to design an operating system for the universe and get it right the first time.

[rman]

10. a certain flaw in ID is that there's no evidence for it. n/t

-

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Next you'll say there was no evidence for WMDs in Iraq..

"evidence" is so last century.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Celebration]

13. Design and Education

Being into a little bit of shape geometry myself-- I can't help but be awed by the repetition of spirals (seashells), snowflake designs, crystals, structure. Have any of you here sat under an open copper pyramid? Oh, it feels great. I recommend the book "Shape Power" by Dan Davidson, if you can find a copy. It is shape geometry that the "free energy" people want to use for generating power. Some even think the Pyramids of Giza were originally a power plant. So it seems to me that there is a design to the universe. However science taught in grade school should be mainstream and Darwin (who is probably wrong about a lot of things) needs to rule there. Lust is obviously part of the design and the study of it should be added to the curriculum. However it will not suffer from lack of attention if it is not.

[mmonk]

14. The fatal flaw is it starts with a premise

and tries to fit everything into the framework of that determined premise. So all that they are trying to do may open up possible scenarios that don't fit Judeo-Christian beliefs when calling it ID, but all they are trying to do is to make their beliefs valid knowing that their followers will always think in Judeo-Christian terms.

[BadMonkey]

16. Education is a great place to start...!

"The one common ground of all civilizations of humankind is that there MUST be a pantheon, a religion, and from that a way of life."

This again, is a weird neo-racist fantasy of the far left, that all people miraculously will join a "great one world religion", based on White Liberal "Democratic" principals, of course. Its neo-racist, and absurd.

I would highly recommend Allan Watts on this subject matter.

Religion is a reflection of the ethnic group of people it comes from.

The Bible,(Judeo-Christian) for example, comes from Western Europeans, and has the same basic psychological foundation seen in Western European Civilization. We have had Lords, or Kings, as described in the Bible.The Asians don't have this same type of culture, so its not reflected in the way more advanced, but morally bankrupt Yin Yang of Budhism... Again- Allan Watts

1/3 or more of all U.S. presidents still come from Royalty, GW Buch is the prime example, being related to Blue-blood European Royalty, as was Kerry, only Kerry has more Nordic roots...

Etc. Most of these questions have been asked and answered before. College Religion 101, except that we have way more information on human behavior now... Its way more interesting to see why people behave the way they do.... Allan Watts is the king of this issue.
=)

[Pepperbelly]

17. the Bible comes from Western Europeans? nt

[immoderate]

23. I think it's the Middle Eastern branch of the Western Europeans.

--IMM:smoke:

[CJCRANE]

77. Well, the english translations

come from Western Europeans. The original books in the Bible must have been in Hebrew (or other semitic language).

It'd be interesting to ask a Jewish scholar how closely the english translations match their versions of the same stories.

[mhr]

21. "morally bankrupt Yin Yang of Buddhism"

Clearly Mr. Watts knows not of what he speaks.

I suggest you try "The Spectrum of Consciousness" by Ken Wilber for a comparative analysis of how Christianity is more like Buddhism than most Fundies can handle. Mind you that Wilber is too intellectually steep for most people. I suspect that most Fundie heads would explode.



http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=QC7z8aIBcn&isbn=0835606953&itm=20

[rman]

24. mandatory religion is a "far left" concept?

can you point out a single far left group or movement that is aiming for a "great one world religion"?

can you present any evidence to support the notion that it is not in fact a far right idea?

[CJCRANE]

78. "We have had Lords, or Kings, as described in the Bible".

The words "Lord" and "King" as used in the Bible are just english translations of Hebrew words. The original Hebrew words may have different connotations.

[Pepperbelly]

15. I have given these guys opportunity to make their case to me.

I am open-minded to any idea. On I.D., I have searched the net for studies, articles etc. Where I found proponents of I.D. clustered together at some sites, I also found links to articles supporting I.D.

So I followed those links and read those articles and none of them, none of them actually made an affirmative case for their hypothesis. The closest they came was the flagellum and that is certainly not a slam-dunk even though some of the articles critical of the example as an example also left much to be desired.

I am about to conclude that given infinite ability to communicate their data, they have not done so. Since the advocates of I.D. are advopcating that this be taught in the schools, I believe that if they had evidence, they would present it. They have not.

Reluctantly, I conclude that they just don't have the data.

[BadMonkey]

20. Intelligent Design, Stupid Theory...

Intelligent Design goes to a "personal God" being responsible for everything.

There are obvious laws of nature, and the universe. Man does exist. I/D is just a way to counter Evolution Theory in America. Europe does not have this problem. God concepts are very powerful in the USA, as we have rejected Big Brother, for Little Brother.


As Amercia lacks a solid Ethnic foundation, (Unlike France, which is mainly French people, not Yugoslav...)- religion, and Diverse religions of the same basic J/C foundation at that, have sprung up....

So there is really no way to defeat it, as it is structural to Amercia... Without it, we would share the oil wealth....Oh Well,.........

This is the same old Right Wing Religious crappola that they bring up every 5 years to challenge Darwinism, they have no choice......

[mhr]

22. You Lost Me Here

"God concepts are very powerful in the USA, as we have rejected Big Brother, for Little Brother."

[rman]

25. I/D, creationism is rearing its head in Europe to.

Proponents of ID and creationism have found a platform in mainstream media. Though it looks like Europeans aren't as susceptible to these ideas as many Americans are.

[Henny Penny]

28. in europe

I can honestly say that I have seen no evidence of ID rearing its head here. No-one seems to be debating or discussing it anywhere. Currently even religious people here regard US fundies as nuts.

Lets hope it stays that way.

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[Pepperbelly]

39. Welcome Henny Penny!

Pull up a chair. :popcorn:

:beer:

:smoke:

[rman]

55. It isn't on TV a lot, so it's easy to miss it (thank goodness)

but i have in fact seen discussion of ID in a mainstream talkshow on national TV.

[Hugin]

19. You're wasting your valuable thoughts...

Intelligent Design like the litany of flat earth and
geocentric anti-Galilean arguments put forth before it
are exactly *that*, arguments.

The only design in Intelligent Design is the desire to
obfuscate and corrupt the scientific process.

Built on fear and loathing these arguments have been
used for centuries by "authorities" to enforce their
self-proclaimed "control" on the minds of others.

People often think the right-wing-noise-machine is a
new concept. It has been around since the first cave
person whacked another over the head for questioning
his "Divine right" to rule.

[Malva Zebrina]

29. I don't think I am designed by an intelligent whatever

I am designed with a deviated septum, nearsighted with a enigmatic stigmatism on the inside of the cornea, retroverted uterus and the appendix, which serves no purpose at all, except that it becomes inflammed and infected in some people.

If one buys a car and it had four or five or more defects, one is entitled to return it and the designer would be fired in short order.

[Henny Penny]

30. I am sure

that you are beautiful nonetheless!

:hug:

[Swamp Rat]

31. Intelligent Design = Belief

It has little to do with science or sciencing, unless perhaps one is doing research about belief systems, i.e. sociocultural anthropology.

"The Intelligent Designer is a being of Morals" - So is Zeus. The "academically pleasing" nomenclature is really not academic nor is it pleasing to academicians. At best, it is sophomoric phraseology by pseudo-scientists with a thesaurus. :)

[Lone Pawn]

32. I think the best answer to your question,

is in CS Lewis's book "The Great Divorce," (so named because it was written as an answer to Blake's "Marriage of Heaven and Hell.") A quick summary is that all sins have their counterpart virtues, and all virtues their counterpart vices. Lust is the evil side of desire, which is a virtue--without desire to, say, know God, know Heaven, know the truths of the world, and, indeed, carnally know the person you've dedicated your soul to, life is worthless. With beauty removed from desire, though, leaving only the desire for fleeting pleasure, desire descends into lust, which is a sinful state--that is, a state of spiritual uselessness.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. And eighteen frimhatzes make a fitzwardle...

nevertheless, none of it belongs in science class.

[Lone Pawn]

70. Well, duh, but not for the reason you stated.

It doesn't belong in a science class because it's nonfalsifiable and is therefore nonscientific--not because you haven't done any research on Christian theology.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. You're trying to trick them into enjoying their sexuality...

not gonna happen.

[Jade Fox]

40. If Design is Intelligent, does that make evolution stupid?

I thought the whole idea behind evolution is that what works survives.
Seems pretty smart to me.

The whole ID rap is just a new spin on Creationism. But, I'm sure
you knew that. :)

[SmokingJacket]

42. Well....

Clearly, lust can't be sin, then!

What always stops me with Intelligent Design is the utter STUPIDITY of the world. Holocaust, anyone? Babies born with AIDS?

Real intelligent.

Some kind of spontaneous generation of life followed by evolution is the only thing that makes sense.

I mean, if that Intelligent Designer is still around, after having deliberately created the conditions that later allowed for Hitler and Rwanda and Tay-Sachs syndrome and tsunamis... well, I'd like to have a word with him or her.

[KittyWampus]

43. Intelligent Design Doesn NOT Posit The Existence Of A DESIGNER

how many damn times need I post this.

Do SOME Scientists and Theorists who understand what ID is go too far and make an intellectual leap into positing the existance of a Being or Personhood who embodies the CAPACITY for Design?

Yes.

But that is their error.

[Zenlitened]

44. Oh, bullshit. ID is creationism in lab-coat drag. - n/t

[Pepperbelly]

45. slogans are not rebuttal ...

They are just sounds.

[Zenlitened]

46. ... said he, with a clever slogan.

:crazy:

[Pepperbelly]

47. I was noting ...

not rebutting.

Crying Shame made a point. The point has not been disputed. That's the score.

Unless you didn't intend to rebut the post. :shrug:

[Zenlitened]

48. Yes, over and over again, endlessly and forever...

... just because you asked so nicely.

Tell you what, why don't you do some research on the roots of the ID movement, maybe make note of who's funding it and who its leading proponents are, then get back to us with what you've found.

You might try Google. Or perhaps you could search the DU archive. Or even search your own posts, and those of cryingshame as well. That should provide hours of fond memories.

Seriously, Pep, you're losing your touch. No subtlety at all any more. :D

[Pepperbelly]

49. wha ...

I looked into it a lot. Don't believe it after looking at what they considered their best shot. The flagellum. I ended up unconvinced although the articles counter to it were pretty flawed as well. Oh well ... ID is hypothesizing so it's their baby to prove.

However, the point made by Crying Shame is one that is usually missed completely by virtually everyone and is a point that is absolutely accurate.

[Zenlitened]

50. Please, explain to me... in excruciating detail if you'd like...

... how that point is "absolutely accurate." I'd be interested to see how anything about such a hoplessly muddled claim as ID can be "absolutely accurate."

I'll check back in later tonight for the latest in this semantic shell game.

[Pepperbelly]

51. I don't do shell games ...

I am merely noting that your dismissal of Cry Shame's remarks were noted by those reading the thread and that you didn't actually answer. Perhaps you didn't understand the point.

What Crying Shame is saying is that there is no requirement that the "Intelligent Designer" be a deity or any such thing. Crying Shame noted that although some adocates conflated one with the other, the conflation was the fault of the practitioner rather than the hypothesis.

So far, judging from the responses, Crying Shame stands unrefuted. I've seen this happen before. Crying Shame makes this point and people choose to misunderstand it or ignore it, whichever supports their own personal mythology.

[Zenlitened]

52. Well then explain to me the point of that statement...

... there was no supporting argument to go with it, so perhaps you'd like to provide some details.

Edited to add: Logging off now, so feel free to take your time explaining how Intelligent Design does not argue a designer.

[Pepperbelly]

54. Why?

It isn't mine to argue. It's Crying Shame. I was noting that it is unrefuted.

I already noted that I find the ID notions lacking in the most critical area ... specifically that of evidence.

However, if I were to be arguing in favor of it, at least as far as Crying Shame's post goes, I would suggest that supporting argumentation is unnecessary due to the structure of the theory AND the structure of C.S.'s claim. I understood immediately what C.S.'s reasoning was. Do you not see it as well?

It's actually kind of tertiary anyway.

on edit: I just wanted C.S. to understand that SOMEONE out here understood her point. And I believe that where she is going with it is toward the body of work and examination regarding quantum physics and consciousness with a sort of universal conciousness constituting the designer rather than a personal deity of some nature, Jehovah or Umma Gumma, Lord of the Sand Flea Pygmys or whatever,

[arewenotdemo]

57. Universal consciousness

makes sense to me.

[Zenlitened]

60. Nice cop-out. But in any case...

... ID is a political construct developed by fundamentalist christians as part of a larger plan to win influence or control over American government and society.

If you want to argue in support of a cosmic consciousness, by all means you have every right to do so. But call it that. You don't have the right to make up new definitions of existing terms -- and then complain that you're being misunderstood.

[Pepperbelly]

80. you misunderstood Crying Shame.

I don't know how much more clearly that can be stated.

[Zenlitened]

81. Really? What did I misunderstand? - n/t

[rman]

56. how can there be design without a designer?

how can there be intelligence without a sentient entitiy?

[gollygee]

59. Intelligent design means someone who was intelligent did the designing

of course it points to the existence of a designer.

:eyes:

[Stuckinthebush]

61. What is intelligent design?

From Intelligent Design Network>]: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

From what I have found on other sites devoted to ID, it seems as though ID proponents position ID as a study of intelligent causes in the natural world. This study, to them, does not presuppose an intelligent being...yet. Proponents state that first we have to see if there are designs in nature that correlate with intelligence or purpose that is derived from intelligent designing. They are accurate in stating that the first wave of the theory does not say anything about a designer...they just wish to test whether or not there is evidence to suggest intelligent design.

However, we would be fools to believe that the proponents of such a theory have no intent to make a connection to an intelligent designer and then to name this intelligent designer. The theory assumes patterns in nature that can only be attributed to design from an intelligent source. Who else would be powerful enough to make these patterns? Well, only a god or gods, of course. I guess one could postulate that the designers were white mice...that is a theory that has been postulated and will be brought to movie theaters this summer.

[bpilgrim]

66. what do they posit...

i wonder, that is new or different, then? :shrug:

peace

[Lars39]

72. Yes, it does.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php?PHPSESSID=086c38b13d80f66f5cbc5cef2dee5fc2#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

From the Center of Science and Culture:

<snip>Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations<snip>
______________________________________________________________________
Why are you backing pseudoscience that is clearly backed by right wing think tanks?

edited to add link

[RPM]

84. no, but designs dont happen by themselves

they need a designer.... and who do you think that is???

[XemaSab]

53. "Lust" is only a sin in some cultures

so maybe we're wrong about what the Creator's morals are.

[rockymountaindem]

62. Please stop saying "Judeo-Christian" with reguards to this.

I don't know of any Jews who believe the creation story literaly (or disbelieve evolution), and I'd guess one would have to travel far and wide to find one. A lot of Jews I know don't really even believe in God.

[MXMLLN]

64. I tend to think that Judeo-Christian morality ...

... drives toward helping to ensure that all human young (children) are born into a sustainable nurturing context (environment) ... in which they can, most successfully, reach human maturity.

Human children must be supported for some 14-18 years before reaching maturity ... and, for this to happen, ... there must exist some nurturing construct (the family) to maximize that goal.

[Taxloss]

65. And only Judeo-Christians have families?

Or are you implying that only Judeo-Christians make good parents?

[MXMLLN]

67. No ... I simply commented on the religious system of morality ...

... with which I am most familiar.

I believe that the question had to do with ... why the religions adhered to by those who believe in the Intelligent Design philosophic concept ... tend to put constraints upon sexual expression.

I simply supplied a possible answer ... garnered from the context in which I am most familiar.

Perhaps someone with more experience in other belief contexts can add these own particular perspectives.

[Taxloss]

68. Teaching a degree of sexual restraint is pure common sense.

Nothing to do with religion. Sure, religions might incorporate it, but you seemed to say that Chistians were more likely to have stable families. I think this is not true, and that you are being unfair not only to people of other faiths but also to atheists.

I am also familiar with the "Christian family structure", but it's not exactly hard to see that people of other faiths and people of no faith are equally able to create stable families.

[MXMLLN]

69. Where did I posit any system of belief over any other ?

I simply spoke to a particular situation ... which is appropriate, given that it is the system with which I am most familiar.

[Taxloss]

71. You said:

"I tend to think that Judeo-Christian morality drives toward helping to ensure that all human young (children) are born into a sustainable nurturing context (environment) ... in which they can, most successfully, reach human maturity."

My emphasis. To me, that reads as though you're implying other structures would be less successful. Maybe I'm mistaken.

[MXMLLN]

73. Hmm ... I see your point.

My intention was for most successfully to relate to the concept of the family ... rather than the Judeo-Christian driver.

But I see how my statement can be read the other way.

I could have worded my statement better.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

[Taxloss]

74. I think we both ran up our respective trees on that one.

Sorry for piling in.

[jester j]

75. possible flaw in an understanding of intelligent design...

what you are describing isn't intelligent design proper. rather, it is your understanding of benevolent creator. and it is misrepresented at that.

you're delving into the theology of the benevolent, relational creator concept of such religious worldviews as Christianity and Judaism.

[Solly Mack]

76. Coco Chanel was an intelligent designer

Course, there are several like her ... no entire group of people will ever agree on the most intelligent designer

but Coco helped to get women out of the corset with her simple, yet elegant, designs.

Born in a poorhouse in Saumur,where her mother toiled, Coco, real name Gabrielle, would claim her birth date was 1893....

Wha..?Wha..?Wha..?

This isn't the essay portion of "My favorite intelligent designer"?

[Hugin]

79. They couldn't possibly be talking about Microsoft, dah-link.

I prefer weaves to prints... They just seem more substantial.

[Solly Mack]

82. a nice soft brushed weave

for my outdoorsy side

;)

[LanternWaste]

83. "The Problem With Pain".

Try Lewis' "The Problem With Pain". He answers this in great depth. Inexpensive paperback re-issue for about 7 U.S. dollars.

Every instinct, every pleasure and every joy can be co-opted and used against us. That's an extreme nutshell. If you read it, you'll get a wonderfully thoughtful response to the question (although it doesn't address ID specifically).